Re: logical equivalence problem

Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.inquiry,gmane.comp.ai.conceptual-graphs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Mike et al. --

Back to the initial problem:

* Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p

We can translate this into logical graphs by supposing that we
have to express everything in terms of negation and conjunction,
using parentheses for negation -- that is, "(x)" for "not x" --
and simple concatenation for conjunction -- "xyz" or "x y z"
for "x and y and z".

In this form of representation, for historical reasons called
the "existential interpretation" of logical graphs, we have
the following expressions for basic logical operations:

The disjunction "x or y" is written "((x)(y))".

This corresponds to the logical graph:

         x   y
         o   o
          \ /
           o
           |
           O

The disjunction "x or y or z" is written "((x)(y)(z))".

This corresponds to the logical graph:

         x y z
         o o o
          \|/
           o
           |
           O

Etc.

The implication "x => y" is written "(x (y)),
which can be read "not x without y" if that
helps to remember the form of expression.

This corresponds to the logical graph:

         y o
           |
         x o
           |
           O

Thus, the equivalence "x <=> y" has to be written somewhat
inefficiently as a conjunction of to and fro implications:
"(x (y))(y (x))".

This corresponds to the logical graph:

       y o   o x
         |   |
       x o   o y
          \ /
           O

Putting all the pieces together, the problem given
amounts to proving the following equation, expressed
in parse string and logical graph forms, respectively:

* Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p

       q o   o p           q o
         |   |               |
       p o   o q             o   o p
          \ /                |   |
           o               p o   o--o q
           |                  \ /
           O         =         O

( (p (q)) (q (p)) ) = (p ( (q) )) ((p)(q))

No kidding ...

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
mathweb: http://www.mathweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
p2p wiki: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/User:JonAwbrey
planet math: http://planetmath.org/?op=userobjs;id=15246
proof wiki: http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
semantic web: http://semanticweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
c: http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=5619
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.